Butler v Wolf Sussman case

Butler v Wolf Sussman case

Legal practice is a goal to which every law school student, overcoming a long and challenging path. To get a license to practice law, you need to spend about seven years and several hundred thousand dollars, or, of course, if you are lucky and intelligent enough to get government funding. There are two schools you need to graduate from: a university or college for a bachelor’s degree and a law school. First-year law students are trained according to the method of Socrates. This is a complicated and confusing method, which consists of a detailed analysis of cases by students. At the same time, the teacher asks questions and discusses with students their views on the matter, thus encouraging the development of unique legal thinking and the ability to look at the case from all possible angles. It is this practice that has proven to be highly effective.

One of the cases considered by freshmen is the “diamond ring case.” Currently, Professor of Law at the University of Miami School of Law Irwin P. Stotzky wrote a law review article on the case of Butler v Wolf Sussman. This is an excellent practice for acquainting students with the judiciary and the structure of law. The decision refers to the rules of global justice, statutes, common law, and Indiana’s constitution. Students repeatedly re-read the materials and the verdict, analyze every detail of the judge’s opinions. 

The essence of the matter is as follows: in 1920, the appellant inherited in the form of a ring, later she married and lived with her husband for 13 years. On January 8, 1940, the couple did not live together, but they were not officially divorced. The whereabouts of the man were unknown. The appellant, gathering her stuff, could not find the ring and assumed that it had been taken away by her husband. The man, in turn, confirmed the fact that he took the ring and had pledged it as his own to Wolf Sussman, a licensed pawnbroker. He even showed a check from a pawnshop stating that on November 18, 1938, he brought it to the pawnshop for a $ 25 loan. Subsequently, this loan grew to $ 35. And all this the husband did without the prior consent of his wife. So she found out about it and sued the pawnshop, which accepted the ring without her permission. In 1943, the Indian Supreme Court ruled on the case, which was written on four pages. Referring to the common law, statutes, and constitution of the state of Indiana, the court upheld the appellant’s claim and ordered the pawnshop to return the ring.

In this example, law school students see the rule of law, and moral values ​​as an Indiana court ordered the ring to be returned to its rightful owner. This is one of many vivid historical examples of how, through the judiciary, people have fought for their rights and justice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *